why should we have stricter gun laws

Guns are dangerous, powerful and cruel. Guns are daring. We use them in war to kill people. Guns are also the cause of thousands of deaths every year. It is safe to say that guns cause more problems than good in our society. This is why I do not have a problem with those that want stricter gun laws. However people say, People are dangerous not guns thereвs a higher chance that you might die from a car than a firearm. So are cars dangerous? People say why do you need a firearm with large capacity? Why do u need a car that has 600 hp. Youвre not going to go 170 on the streets that's against the law. People are very unstable when you look at them. People get angry and that is a fact. Why would we allow fire arms to be sold freely if the human species can get so unstable? I think that if you show images of guns as well as showing images of how a man should be for an example Army husband with a gun in his hand, then you will feel like it is cool to fire assault rifles. I have read with interest those of you who state that guns should not be banned because hardened criminals will still have access to them and you feel that you need to protect yourselves. So I thought that I would do a little research on gun related violence and compare the US, where almost anyone can get a gun with Great Britain where gun ownership is highly restricted. In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10. 2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims. Whereas in the UK that figure was 0. 25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people. Guns are out of control in this country, and it's not doing anyone any good There is no reason that Americans should be able to buy massive amounts of firearms and ammunition, when the only purpose for such things is the taking of other human lives. If more guns truly make America safer, as pro-gun activists like to claim, then why is America the ONLY country where mass-shooting continue to take place?

It's time to get reasonable about the 2nd amendment and what our forefathers were really advocating for. Yes, America should have stricter gun laws. Many of the gun laws which have been proposed do not alter an individual's access to guns, and sensationalism in the media has distorted the discussion between those seeking to toughen gun laws and those seeking to prevent their guns from being "taken. " Most proposed laws have been only for stricter background checks for individuals purchasing guns, which is a common-sense thing to do. If a man has a history of domestic abuse, he should not get a gun and be able to use deadly force. Perhaps weeding out those people who have violent backgrounds would help to prevent future disasters. Yes, American should have stricter guns laws. Yes, there should be stricter guns laws in America. Gun-related death and injury is not a problem in many other countries which have stricter gun laws. Regulating guns could greatly reduce the number of mass-shootings and violence in the nation's cities. In 2012, there were over 8,000 firearm-related homicides in the United States alone. Owning a gun is privilege, and with privilege comes regulation. America should definitely have stricter gun laws. In light of all of the recent mass shootings, I believe it is common sense that there should be more strict gun laws followed in this country. Stricter background checks should be employed as well as other measures such as mental health screenings that would possibly help control the gun violence. However, taking away guns will never be the answer. If this article is supposed to be a well thought out critique of the current gun laws in the USA then the author needs to resign his position and enroll in a good middle school. Let's just critique it one argument at a time. You start your article by building a straw man. Unfortunately for you your arguments are not able to tear down even your very weak straw man.

Do people have guns to protect values? Where did you get that idea? Probably read it on a Facebook post. Why did you change terms from rights to values? Because you cannot state what you know to be true. You want to take away people's right to own guns. A right given to the citizens of the USA. If you stated your goal you would lose the argument straight away so instead you cloak your goal with a soft peddling change of terms and hope that only weak thinking people will read your article and miss the lie. Your second argument is much the same as the first. Where did you get the idea that most gun owners purchased those guns to fight against some future tyrannical government? Could you please site your research? The constitution of the USA grants and protects the right to bear arms. It doesnt matter why the citizen wants to bear those arms, the right is given and protected. Your third argument is full of data but you missed the point that is right in front of you. Criminals do not obey laws. It is already illeagal to kill someone with a gun unles you do so in self defense. How would more laws stop the criminals? Again you refuse to state your goal which is to outlaw all guns. Confiscate all guns and there will be no gun violence, leave some guns legal and criminals will use those guns to commit violence. Why not just state your position? Because you cannot advocate for that after stating in your opening that citizens should trust that everyone should just trust that everyone else will follow the rule of law. You are the poster child for why we cannot trust that people will follow the rule of law. You advocate against the highest law of the land. Your fourth argument is to site a flawed study and jump to a conclusion. How have the researchers eliminated all other factors to be able to conclude that the only factor in reducing homocide rates is stricter gun laws? Then you tack on a moreover side argument that has nothing to do with homicde rates. Why? Because you know that your preceding argument was weak and without merit.

You failed there also because your weak argument cannot be helped by another weak argument. All of your previous arguments could be forgiven as the ramblings of a well intentioned person struggling to find some way to curb violence. Your last argument shows your real shortcoming. You are not capable of grasping even the simplest concept. The right to free speech is not limited. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not free speech, now or ever. You cannot put other peoples rights at risk and try to hide behind a law. The right to free speech is unlimited. Go back and read the constitution and find me a law that contradicts the constitution. There is no law that makes it leagal to break another law. There is no right that when exercised will take away another right. To compare the right to bear arms and free speech with the privilege to drive a car is ludicrous at best. If I were you I would remove the comparison before any of my students or peers has a chance to read it. You lose all credibility with that argument. You fail as a philosopher because you do not deal with first causes. What is it that causes violence? Guns? Please, for the sake of all your students tell me that that is not your argument. Deal with the first cause and maybe you can make progress toward a solution. Do you believe in rights? Who gives rights? Is there any such thing as right and wrong or truth? Why are people the way that they are? The answer is a simple one albeit not popular. Sin wrecks everywhere and everything. Until you are willing to deal with the problem of sin violence will continue. There is only one person who has dealt finally with the guilt, power and penalty of sin, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a day coming when all will be made right, when justice will be meted out by God who is love and when that day comes no one will be able to hide and only those who have repented will be brought to glory. Today is the day of salvation.